As Expected, Alternative DNS Systems Sprouting Up To Ignore US Censorship

from the not-like-people-weren't-warned dept

After the US government, via Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division, started seizing domains without any notification or adversarial hearing (things that most of the world would consider to be reasonable due process), some folks quickly put together a browser extension, called MAFIAAfire, that would route around any ICE seizures and take you directly to the sites whose domains had been seized. This is, as the internet saying goes, a form of seeing censorship as "damage" and routing around it. Of course, that could be done on a much larger scale. As a bunch of the folks who built key pieces of the core internet infrastructure warned, continuing this kind of policy (and extending it with PROTECT IP) will lead to more workarounds that inevitably will fracture key pieces of the internet and make it significantly less secure. Supporters of PROTECT IP refuse to heed this warning -- and, from what we've heard -- refuse to compromise and make sure that the basic functioning of DNS will be protected.

So now, totally as expected, we're already seeing alternative DNS systems showing up, advertising that they should be used to route around US government censorship of such websites. The one getting attention these days is called BlockAid.me.

What's just as stunning as the fact that supporters of PROTECT IP still can't figure out how this is really, really bad, is that they also don't realize how this pretty much destroys any argument the US makes around the globe in trying to protest political censorship. Some claim it's entirely different, but it's not. Both involve a government entity deciding that websites cannot be reached without a trial. This makes the US look ridiculous in the eyes of the world, but I guess as long as it makes sure that Universal and Warner Bros. can prop up their profits for a few more years... it's all good.

Reader Comments

But the Protect IP guys will get their way

Since the folks who want Protect IP want to get their way at any cost they will just say this alternate is not legal and of no consequence. Nothing will change the rush to Protect IP. The law makers are going to have to find out the hard way Protect IP is going to break DNS.

Re: Re: But the Protect IP guys will get their way

Could you explain exactly how Protect IP will break DNS please?

DNS blocking works by simply changing the IP address that a given name points to. At the moment, this is a global system. No matter where you are in the world, or what ISP you use, you will always be directed to the same IP address when you enter the name of a web site. (unless you're in a country like China, that censors anything they don't approve of)

PROTECT IP would let the US start blocking web sites and redirecting their domains to government owned IP addresses, which will display some type of warning message and (they hope) prevent people from reaching the sites in question.

To get around this, people are working on alternate DNS systems that won't be controlled by any government. It doesn't matter what their reasons are for doing it, the fact is that it IS being done. Soon there will be various alternate DNS systems to circumvent government blocking.

At that point, DNS is no longer universal. If you're using the government approved DNS system, you get a blocked web site, but if you're using an alternate DNS system, you can reached the blocked site.

However, just like anything else related with computers, this will be abused. There will be "malware" DNS systems that will redirect you to scam sites instead of the real blocked site. Or maybe a DNS service will only include some blocked sites.

So the DNS system becomes fractured and you have to choose which one is best for you and your ability to reach a given site depends on which one you're using.

You'll be seeing ads that claim "Our DNS system is the best! Updated daily! Reach 99.9% of blocked sites! Only $10 a month!"

Re: Re: Re: But the Protect IP guys will get their way

Could you explain exactly how Protect IP will break DNS please?

DNS blocking works by simply changing the IP address that a given name points to. At the moment, this is a global system. No matter where you are in the world, or what ISP you use, you will always be directed to the same IP address when you enter the name of a web site. (unless you're in a country like China, that censors anything they don't approve of)

PROTECT IP would let the US start blocking web sites and redirecting their domains to government owned IP addresses, which will display some type of warning message and (they hope) prevent people from reaching the sites in question.

To get around this, people are working on alternate DNS systems that won't be controlled by any government. It doesn't matter what their reasons are for doing it, the fact is that it IS being done. Soon there will be various alternate DNS systems to circumvent government blocking.

At that point, DNS is no longer universal. If you're using the government approved DNS system, you get a blocked web site, but if you're using an alternate DNS system, you can reached the blocked site.

However, just like anything else related with computers, this will be abused. There will be "malware" DNS systems that will redirect you to scam sites instead of the real blocked site. Or maybe a DNS service will only include some blocked sites.

So the DNS system becomes fractured and you have to choose which one is best for you and your ability to reach a given site depends on which one you're using.

You'll be seeing ads that claim "Our DNS system is the best! Updated daily! Reach 99.9% of blocked sites! Only $10 a month!"

Is that broken enough for you?

That's all? Sounds like my internet will be fine. I don't need to go to a DNS that allows me access to infringing material, so I won't have a problem. More correctly put, YOUR internet will be broken. In your freeloading quest, you will have to venture out into unsecure territory. That's your problem.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But the Protect IP guys will get their way

How do you through your day without tripping over things with your eyes so clearly focus at the tip of your nose?

You don't understand how a fragmented system is inherently less secure for you, even if you don't think you'll be part of "that group." You really need to wake up and widen your field of view.

One of the strongest points against Protect IP is that is will cause these new problem, yet do absolutely nothing to deal with the problem it is aimed at.

What a waste of time, effort and resources.

I'm just interested to know how it will affect me if I use my US based ISP and/or Google to take me to all of the places I want to go, how will I be negatively impacted? And btw, so far what I am hearing is that Protect IP will cause a new problem for would-be infringers which is a huge "who cares" for me and avoidable for those not seeking to pirate copyrighted material.

Meaning you want see part of the internet.
Meaning all that tracking that goes global today won't be possible, you won't see Asians pirating anything, you want see ULTRAVIOLET working in other regions if you don't put servers in each and every part that has a different root domain. People want be able to connect to each other without having to ask what domain system they are using.

Eventually everyone will settle on one but until that they it will be just chaotic.

Meaning you want see part of the internet.
Meaning all that tracking that goes global today won't be possible, you won't see Asians pirating anything, you want see ULTRAVIOLET working in other regions if you don't put servers in each and every part that has a different root domain. People want be able to connect to each other without having to ask what domain system they are using.

Eventually everyone will settle on one but until that they it will be just chaotic.

What part of BRO-KEN you don't understand moron?

But there are many alternate DNS systems now. Why isn't it broken now and why do you believe your doomsday scenario will play out, asshole.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But the Protect IP guys will get their way

The best part asshole is that right now you only have one network to worry about, if laws like PROTECT IP appear hundreds of new networks with layers, upon layers could emerge, it will just make near to impossible to track everyone of those, which means piracy will grow exponentially without you even being able to see what is happening.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But the Protect IP guys will get their way

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwn. Sorry I just don't see the 95% of the population going through such contortions just to get free content. For hardcore infringers, there are easier ways than creating hundreds of networks with layers upon layers. None of that is really necessary for a dedicated freeloader to get infringing content, why would they be bothered? Anyway,by this time next year it will be all over, Protect IP will be law. So I'll meet you here in 365 days and you can admit that you were talking FUD out of your ass.

Not to mention that new generation of P2P networks have anonymous encrypted forums inside them, Protect IP want be able to seize those or stop them from appearing to others since ISP's can't look inside the network and search engines are not required to search their own internal network.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But the Protect IP guys will get their way

The beauty of another root DNS is that people can create their own and spread locally, so all people in one city could be the ones sharing all that stuff locally without attracting attention from the outside since it is an unknown source.

People have the ability to create their own local city wide networks which can be separate from the other internet, if people learn they can build their own networks this could evolve into a business threatening situation to telecoms and ISP's.

The future is bright I see no slowing down on sharing, only the exponential growth of it.

They can't think like that, I am the one with the knowledge and means to bypass anything they do, I am the one with the money, I am the one behind them, if they did that I could be tempted to screw them instead of screwing myself.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But the Protect IP guys will get their way

"But...but...but it won't break the internet."
Not it won't it will just break your ability to see what happens on the internet, it will put internet services in extreme competition with other services that sprout elsewhere, where no competitors exist, it can create the conditions favourable to a virtual currency to appear and you believe that is in the best interest of the USA?

You can't be an American, or you are part of the dumb America.

What happens when it is just a question to select the network you want to be in?

- OpenNic.
- Censored Internet.
- Onion.
- NameCoin.

With a box to tick "Use a proxy" bellow the selection?

Ultraviolet will start to cost mighty to be able to buy domain names in all those places.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But the Protect IP guys will get their way

"But...but...but it won't break the internet."

Not it won't it will just break your ability to see what happens on the internet, it will put internet services in extreme competition with other services that sprout elsewhere, where no competitors exist, it can create the conditions favourable to a virtual currency to appear and you believe that is in the best interest of the USA?

Finally we get to the truth. It won't break the internet. The massive FUD and hysteria whipped up by opponents was all bullshit. I suspect that you are right, it will simply drive much of it underground. My point is that it won't take the entire infringing population with it. For law abiding citizens, their internet experience will be identical after Protect IP is passed.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But the Protect IP guys will get their way

I'm just interested to know how it will affect me if I use my US based ISP and/or Google to take me to all of the places I want to go, how will I be negatively impacted? And btw, so far what I am hearing is that Protect IP will cause a new problem for would-be infringers which is a huge "who cares" for me and avoidable for those not seeking to pirate copyrighted material.

You mean like the Internet Archive, which was declared a rogue site by the entertainment industry? Or legitimate pharmacies in Canada that undercut American prices? Or any of dozens of blogs that discuss music?

Yeah, I'm sure that giving the US government carte blanche to block any web site that the copyright industry objects to, will never affect you...

WaterGate or somethin...

Roberts. : Hey look at all that water going ! we must not let people use all that water ! there are people taking it for free downstream !
Irvine. : I'm calling the lawyers and lobbies we will build the biggest dam they ever saw !
Albert. : Damn right and we will charge it a fortune per bottle ! We will be so much richer i'm getting hard !
Alvaro. : Err... It is me or the water started forking there ? maybe a dam will only divert the flow ?

R. , I. and A. to Alvaro : Shut up ! We need that damn dam ! who care about that little stream !

And so the plain of DNS were flooded by the P-IP DAM.
And everyone kept taking the water for free forever and ever.

The Sadpart of this story is that R.I.A. and A. didn't drown that day.

Re: Re: Re: Re: WaterGate or somethin...

Re: Re: WaterGate or somethin...

Darn... i wrote it during my lunch break and i only got 1 hour to do so, it did not came out right :/

No, i do not want the USA to drown, what i meant was for the whole RIA to drown... (MPA too)

But like in my little story : the last A. is the only one with a modicum of brain and maybe one day he will finally stand up against the three other and push'em into the sea of the internet saying :
Harrr ! Inovate or Sink me' mate ! Aye, because where there is sea there be pirates !

Anyway, as an optimistic man i have faith in mankind, we will overcome those barrier(IP,Patents,Corruption and Trolls) in the long run.

as per usual, those in Congress etc that are making decisions over the Internet dont understand the damage that will be done. dont even understand the Internet itself. what is more concerning is the fact that they dont even care! they are more worried about admitting they are wrong, upsetting the legacy industries and actually doing their job, ie, looking after the interests of the people that voted them into the powerful positions they hold, than doing what is right! how stupid and short-sighted can you get?

Once again, the media companies are spending millions of dollars lobbying our government to spend billions of dollars, only to have some kid with a laptop spend an afternoon at a coffee shop writing an app to render all that time and money wasted.

Re:

Of course. Those of us who had a hand in building in this network will simply not permit mere governments or corporations to get in our way. We have a future to build -- one that doesn't have to include them -- and we will do whatever is necessary to ensure that knowledge and culture and communication flow unimpeded.

They could, if they wanted to, benefit from this, be part of it, support it, join in building the future. They won't. They're simply not intelligent or courageous enough.

Re: Re:

"Of course. Those of us who had a hand in building in this network will simply not permit mere governments or corporations to get in our way. We have a future to build -- one that doesn't have to include them -- and we will do whatever is necessary to ensure that knowledge and culture and communication flow unimpeded."

And I support that effort 100%. I just think it's a shame that all the money being wasted fighting, could be used to adapt, making this world better for all....

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

So instead of replying to the comment about how this policy is going to fail, you're going to argue semantics. Cute.

Let's try this again:

"Basically, the US copyright policy, like the drug policy, the war on poverty, and the war on terror have failed. Some ACs can't wrap their heads around the fact that PIPA makes other alternatives more prevalent to disregard US copyright law policing the world, instead using FUD to imply that the US is only going to go for their definition of rogue site, which could be Craigslist and Ebay or it could be a fan site that has pictures of a movie.

Since we don't know how the affidavits will work, nor how law enforcement will abuse the system, and since alternatives are already popping up that circumvent the process, expect more people to go underground and websites to become a lot less safe due to the government doing similar processes by making DNS systems less safe for Hollywood's outdated business models."

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Let's put it another way: Always expect the worst from your government. Always. Just as those who need to be in physical control tend towards law enforcement, those with a powerful greed for power tend towards politics. It sounds like tin foil hat territory, but that's why there's an amendment to allow for revolution in the Constitution.

Re:

Besides noticing that it's incredibly stupid to draw attention to yourself like that

I'm sure that inferior people like you, who lack both intelligence and expertise, do not realize that this is hardly new. Alternative DNS systems have existed for many years, have a variety of uses, and can be set up so that they're essentially invisible.

Really, if you're going to troll, you could at least try to demonstrate an acceptable level of intellectual ability. As it is, you're simply pathetic garbage, to be bagged and tossed and forgotten.

Re: Re:

I'm sure that inferior people like you, who lack both intelligence and expertise, do not realize that this is hardly new. Alternative DNS systems have existed for many years, have a variety of uses, and can be set up so that they're essentially invisible.

Thanks for destroying the myth that the Protect IP Act will break the Internet. If these alternate DNS systems have been around for years, hard to see any damage will be done by their continued existence.

Re: Re: Re:

Because for the amount of time they've existed, the regular person hasn't needed them. With Protect IP, I expect tons of websites to be wrongly labeled rogue sites and blocked. This means problems for the regular web surfer, who will then go asking for a solution, only to find the alternate DNS.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Thanks for destroying the myth that the Protect IP Act will break the Internet. If these alternate DNS systems have been around for years, hard to see any damage will be done by their continued existence.

Re:

"So those that want to engage in free speech have set up their own DNS."

There, fixed it for ya!

Secondly; do you REALLY believe that no innocent will get hurt by this? Under what rock have you been hiding? Have you not read all the mad lists of "rogue sites" that the "experts" want "taken care of"?

Re: "... those who want to engage in illegal activity have set up their own ..."

You there were some other people who wanted to engage in illegal activities so they set up their own ... country. They wanted to such heinous things they had to leave their homes and find a place for them selves.

They wanted the freedom to subscribe to the beliefs of their own choosing and not one dictated to them by their "leaders." They had their own faults it is true, very true. But they new the way it was was unacceptable, so much so they felt it was wrong. So they went and did their own thing, and made their own mistakes.

Their former "leaders" tried to corral them and contain them and even conquer them but it was too late, the proverbial cows were out of the barn.

I am, of course, referring to the settlers and founding fathers of what became the United States. And yes I know the country has "grown up" to be nearly as autocratic and oppressive as the one it escaped from. But hey, I think that's my point. Its time to blossom again.

Re:

Some claim it's entirely different, but it's not. Both involve a government entity deciding that websites cannot be reached without a trial.

More FUD from the shameless FUDpacker. Masnick, you know perfectly well that the only time that action can be taken against a website under the proposed Protect IP Act is when the accused doesn't want to be found. By your stupid logic, an infringing site could simply avoid service and be totally immune from any sort of action. That's kind of the problem. TVShack.com gets seized by ICE, pops up days later registered in Belize thumbing its nose. So now what? Just ignore it since they're registered in Belize? That's exactly what you and your fellow apologists want and it's not going to happen; and lying about the availability of a hearing isn't going to help. The people here might be stupid enough to believe you, but the people voting know that what you are claiming is simply untrue.

Re:

"but the people voting know that what you are claiming is simply untrue."

I'm a voter. I know what you are claiming/stating is simply untrue. On this, you are correct. As for the rest, erroneous. How is it that the accused can be found after the fact? In regards to the seizures. Isn't the guy behind TVShack.com being extradited or wanting to be extradited to the U.S.? Sounds to me like he was found. Also, Protect IP Act is irrelevant because it hasn't taken effect you. As the law and whatnot currently stands, what you say can't possibly be true. There were no hearings in regards to ANY of the seizures until after they had already happened. Thus lying about the availability of a hearing isn't going to help. The people here ARE NOT stupid enough to believe YOU.

And calling pretty much everything in every article FUD and making personal attacks on Mike does little to make anyone think you are anything but credible.

Re: Re:

Yes, but I'll bet you're not a Senator or Representative who's voting on the Protect IP Act, are you?

There were no hearings in regards to ANY of the seizures until after they had already happened.

First of all, we're talking about the Protect IP Act which is not yet law. Second, the people who run these sites HIDE, because they know what they're doing is illegal. They don't want to be found. Try reading the proposed Act. Service must be attempted before anything else can happen. But because they are HIDING from US law enforcement, generally service cannot be affected. Therefore, the law permits the government to proceed and attempt to prove that the site meets the standard set forth (dedicated to infringing activity with no other significant legitimate purpose) unilaterally. Nothing would make the government (and the many rightsholders) happier than to see these characters show up in a US courthouse.

Re: Re: Re:

"Yes, but I'll bet you're not a Senator or Representative who's voting on the Protect IP Act, are you?"

You see, you didn't specify that the first time around, did you?

"Second, the people who run these sites HIDE, because they know what they're doing is illegal."

What is your definition of "hide"? Because they found the TVShack guy. They found the NinjaVideo crew. It appears to me by "hide" you and the government mean "live in another country". If they "don't want to be found", they would have never been. Nor would they now be facing extradition or any kind of punishment whatsoever. But they are, thus proving, rather obviously, that they weren't in fact hiding at all.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

What is your definition of "hide"? Because they found the TVShack guy. They found the NinjaVideo crew. It appears to me by "hide" you and the government mean "live in another country". If they "don't want to be found", they would have never been. Nor would they now be facing extradition or any kind of punishment whatsoever. But they are, thus proving, rather obviously, that they weren't in fact hiding at all.

The discussion was about whether there was an opportunity for a hearing before a seizure under Protect IP or not. There is, despite the utter lies permeating this site in general and this article in particular.

Sorry I wasn't more specific on who can vote on the Protect IP Act, I forgot how deliberately stupid people here are.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"The discussion was about whether there was an opportunity for a hearing before a seizure under Protect IP or not. There is, despite the utter lies permeating this site in general and this article in particular. "

So you say they were hiding and thus couldn't be found to attend a hearing and thus the actions that were taken, I point out they weren't hiding which is why they were found after the fact, and you what? Try and change the subject somewhat?

"Sorry I wasn't more specific on who can vote on the Protect IP Act, I forgot how deliberately stupid people here are"

Yes, some are. [looks at the guy he's replying to] You said "the people who vote", you were not specific. As such, what you say can be easily misinterpreted. I read "people who vote", I think the actual voting public. I don't think Senators and Representatives, I don't think anyone else would think that either. At least not off the bat. So in this case, no one was being stupid. If anyone is, it's the guy who wasn't specific, has his words turned around on him, and then tries to say others are stupid for not understanding what he clearly meant although it was definitely not clearly stated nor hinted at even remotely.

I think we're done here. I see how you roll, definitely not someone who can be talked to and have a discussion with like two grown adults.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

From all sources, it seems that people won't be able to talk about any type of sports or entertainment. If so, it's liable for infringement.

Notice how a stream of an NHL show is likely to get the DoJ involved: Link

The same story repeats over and over. Movies - the entire Ninjavideo fiasco. Music - shutdown of Napster.

It seems to never be about what actual fans want in making it easier to find music or games or whatever. It's about some made up number to potential losses.

I'm sure the fans were communicating about the Dallas Stars hockey game. With the DoJ threat, they have to go elsewhere to talk about the game. Which makes no sense. For movies, the takedown of the TVShack domain entailed a whirlwind of people that had to go elsewhere for material. And here's where it's weird...

The links are still up to the content. All the DoJ does is take down ONE site instead of going to take down the content itself. So yes, there are free speech concerns here. They were never explored with the NV case, nor currently are they explored with the TVShack case with a bogus extradition beforehand.

But with all of this, there were thousands of people that have had their forums taken down to discuss new shows or old ones on all of the TVShack forums. Hell, what about all the people that discussed the artwork or the community based decisions on NV? How about the people saying that Dallas sucks from the streaming? All of those are free speech concerns that are impeded with the takedowns.

So, as I would implore. If the government is going to takedown a site, there is no need to run around as if these are drug sites (which is essentially what John Morton is trying to use to confuse these situations). The domain seizures in no way relate to drug seizures, where the government is racing against an invisible clock to take down a website because something might change. The content would probably still be there. Hell, they could take pictures and tell the people NOT to takedown content as they went to an adversarial hearing. There's even the DMCA takedown request for IP holders. Making this into a criminal act for an AG or private party is similar to the flamethrower for trying to hammer a nail. It still won't work, and there's a huge chance that the collateral damage from it is nothing, if not massive.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I think you've got me confused for the other Anonymous Coward who did say they were hiding. I clearly said they WERE NOT hiding. As such, I'll forgive your calling me "idiot" but only because I'm going to say it back. Learn proper reading comprehension, idiot.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

AS is your inability to actually laugh creatively. And as for moronic pirates, I'd go so far as to argue that GEMA are pirates; that the PRS are pirates, that the IFPI are pirates,the RIAA, the MPAA, all of whom benefit from that they seek to destroy. Look at Disney, who have literally made a living from stealing PD ideas and locking them up (Tangled is an almost direct ripoff of Rapunzel.)

Re: Re: Re:

> the people who run these sites HIDE, because
> they know what they're doing is illegal.

Either that or they know that what they're doing is perfectly legal in their own country but don't feel like being bound by the laws of some other nation that really has no jurisdiction over them but bullies their way around the world anyway, pretending that it does.

Re:

Ok, enough with the staff pretending to be trolls Mike. FUDpacker? I mean, who with half a working neuron is going to believe an actual person uses that term? What's next, BootyStealer? Mentos The Freetardmaker?

"As Expected, Alternative DNS Systems Sprouting Up.."

I think it's great. It is a necessary, evolutionary step of the global internet. It may not be perfect in the beginning, but it will evolve. And no government in the world has the power to stop it. ];D>

Re: "As Expected, Alternative DNS Systems Sprouting Up.."

Alternate DNS systems pretty much always fail, for a bunch of reasons.

First, it's an opening to a massive "man in the middle" attack, because in changing your DNS to the "alternate" it also means that all of your normal lookups will go that way too. Add a few fake facebook.com and whatever your bank is, and it's the ultimate way to con people out of their passwords and money.

Second, it requires a certain technical understand to even activate it. Not everyone is comfortable playing with their network settings.

Third, you end up with a slower internet. With DNS not being distributed (and instead everyone counting on one small set of DNS servers) the potential for a DoS attack on those DNS servers is high, and they also become a prime target for hackers and scammers (see my first point).

You want to use it? Knock yourselves out. Just don't come back bitching when you bank account gets emptied out, because you were using an alternate DNS supported by a bunch of hackers.

Re:

Re: Re:

..and this is where you try to explain why DNSSEC, which isn't widely used, would be some grand loss to the internet, even though we don't use it today. Then you will try to explain why using a DNS put up by some random tool in the Netherlands is somehow going to be safer.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Personally I'm still waiting for your answer. You are agreeing that PROTECT IP will have significant detrimental effects on the internet, right?

I'll answer this. The so-called internet engineers who claim Protect IP will "break" the internet are the ones who most commonly use alternate DNS systems today. Currently, there is domain blocking and content filtering and- lo and behold- the internet isn't broken. I'm using it right now.

Funny how the same people who say that the internet views censorship as damage and routes around it, talk out of the other side of their face and say the Protect IP Act will "break" the Internet. So which is it?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The person who said it would "break" the internet also admitted in the same interview that what it would "break" (DNSSEC) isn't currently widely used, nor it is likely to be implemented. So the only "break" they can come with isn't really a break.

" The so-called internet engineers who claim Protect IP will "break" the internet are the ones who most commonly use alternate DNS systems today. "

Re: Re: Re:

Every single home computer user knows someone who can help change their DNS settings. Having a reliable tech friend has become mandatory for anyone owning a modern PC.

Once these alternate DNS become tried tested and trusted, most friendly neighbour IT literates, such as myself, will be offering to change the settings on the PC of anyone who should invite me over, regardless of for defragging, reinstalling OS, setting up a new modem etc.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

very single home computer user knows someone who can help change their DNS settings. Having a reliable tech friend has become mandatory for anyone owning a modern PC.

Once these alternate DNS become tried tested and trusted, most friendly neighbour IT literates, such as myself, will be offering to change the settings on the PC of anyone who should invite me over, regardless of for defragging, reinstalling OS, setting up a new modem etc.

Great idea. I'm sure your neighbors will be thrilled when they get digitally mugged and have their bank account emptied.

You greatly overestimate the percentage of casual infringers who will pursue this. Particularly if it involves you coming to their house.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"It's becoming quite clear that you aren't answering any questions in regards to DNS because you don't know the technicalities of it."

You're also ignoring the massive backlash that will be gearing up to laws such as this.

Backlash? Don't make me laugh. What are you going to do, march on Washington? Stomp your feet? Hold your breath until you turn blue? You won't do shit. You'll continue to take content for free without compensating the rightful owner. But millions of others will not and either do without, or obtain it lawfully. Actually if you do grow some balls and march on DC make sure to wear a Techdirt t-shirt so I can brief the cops on who is most in need of a taste of "salsa" (Just kidding Jay!) But whatever you do don't get yourself arrested on a Friday or Saturday. A soft, mouthy "activist" type like you wouldn't last the weekend in the DC City Jail.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Because making a law is going to solve all your problems. Similar to Hadopi, the Digital Economy Act, and the Three Strikes campaign in Australia.

Tell me, how are they working out so far while you go for these weak retorts?

The international scene is a weakness for me. Though the Techdirt article on Hadopi indicated a huge fall off from first to second to third strikes. Seems to me that indicates that a warning system is making an impact. S. Korea seems to be doing pretty well with its very stringent system.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Ben, you greatly over estimate people's computer abilities. There are no end of people who can barely turn them on, let alone change the network setting without someone to run them through it step by step.

Don't confuse them by asking them to hit the "any" key. That will blow them out for hours.

Also remember, changing the DNS puts your entire internet experience in the hands of a third party that you have no way to verify or trust. It also means that virus that changes the DNS settings is more likely to be successful, because people are NOT using the default settings, so any changes here might not stand out. Those sorts of changes could not easily be trapped out by anti-virus or anti-hacking software.

Sorry Ben, but it's a non-starter. There have been any number of alternate DNS systems in the last 15 years, and in the end, they all fail for the same reasons of lack of trust, lack of control, and lack of security.

Plus I have to wonder: If you are willing to give over your internet security to people you don't know just to be able to keep getting infringing content, what else would you do for it?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I agree that it's essentially a non-starter for today's average computer user. What about the generations of kids who are growing up with computers?

I have a beef with this sentence: "Plus I have to wonder: If you are willing to give over your internet security to people you don't know just to be able to keep getting infringing content, what else would you do for it?"

This isn't about being able to get access to infringing content. Honestly seizing domain names to stop access to infringing content is about as effective as trying to put out a house fire with a toy water gun. This is about large corporate entities who support domain name seizure aiming their cross hairs on legitimate sites (Monster Cable claiming Sears, Costco, Ebay as 'rogue' sites? Universal Music listing 50 Cent's own site as a 'rogue' site?).

If you or anyone else wants to claim that this is all about limiting access to infringing content and ignore that these corporate giants are adding a dash of personal vendetta to their 'rogue' site lists (and you're living in fantasy if you think these lists are not going directly to the desks over at the DOJ) then you're not quite on the same wavelength that reality is on.

How can the US government be so stupid about the internet. At one time, DNS resided on servers because they were the only things big enough for it. But today, even a MP3 play has enough capacity to host DNS. There is nothing to stop everyone from downloading and running a personal DNS, with multiple sources from anywhere in the world. All this censorship does is put more power in the hands of the people.

expect more people to go underground and websites to become a lot less safe due to the government doing similar processes by making DNS systems less safe for Hollywood's outdated business models.

So people seeking free access to infringing content will be flocking to unsafe DNS systems? So what? If you choose to walk down a dark alley in a bad neighborhood instead of the brightly lit main street and you get mugged, that's your problem.

instead using FUD to imply that the US is only going to go for their definition of rogue site, which could be Craigslist and Ebay

Wrong again, FUDboy. Protect IP Act is only useable against foreign websites. Craigslist and Ebay are US sites. And existing law is available to do in this country (ie Ninjavideo, TVShack, et al) what Protect IP is designed to do abroad. Yet with an available law in place, Ebay and Craigslist are still on-line. Why FUDboy, why?

Re: Re: Re:

And music that the cops don't like (or understand), or think that their bosses don't like (or understand). And books. And community organizations. And up-and-coming technologies. And competition to established entities. And inconvenient displays of democracy....

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

This sounds oddly familiar...

But I can't quite put my finger on it...

That's it? The best you can do is a weak analogy to an event from 60+ years ago? That's pitiful. In that era, separate but equal was on the books and the KKK was a respected political force. First it was the "war on the poor" then, "oops, uhhh" the "war on the middle class" now this piece of nonsense. Obviously this is what happens when you escape adult supervision and venture off on your own... breathtaking stupidity.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

It seems like you don't get it. You certainly act like you never will. However, I think you DO get it, and it frightens you that so many around you get it, as well. Massive infringements against the peoples' free speech rights to try and protect the income of a few is going to have a major backlash.

Re: Re:

We all know the sort of shit that happens in back alleys, because it isn't legal to do in public. Are you suggesting that we should all give up the main street and start living like the lawless people who try to hide in the dark?

Would you like some nice untested, unsafe, and unclean medicine? How about some nice condoms guaranteed to only leak 20% of the time? Maybe you would like some bootleg whiskey with that, an underage hooker, and some new speakers for you computer that "just fell of the back of a truck".

Re: Re: Re:

Would you like some nice untested, unsafe, and unclean medicine? How about some nice condoms guaranteed to only leak 20% of the time?

And when the proposed legislation actually can resolve these issues (where existing laws cannot) and when this new legislation cannot be easily abused to subdue "inconvenient content", I'll support it.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Your comment is the definition of FUD. It is a simple matter to find out if the discount online pharmacy you're going to use is legit or not. Or did you mean "unsafe medication" like you can get from Canada that is actually the real medicine but just priced so that people can afford it?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Sorry, exactly how is it that this legislation fixes this issue? And how is it that existing laws do not?

US law enforcement cannot seize a foreign rogue website. They seized TVshack.net and it popped right back up as TVshack.bz. The Protect IP Act will allow orders to be served on US based payment processors and ad networks prohibiting them from doing business with TVshack.bz. It will also prohibit US based search engines and ISP's from carrying you to TVshack.bz when you type it in or search it.

What's just as stunning as the fact that supporters of PROTECT IP still can't figure out how this is really, really bad, is that they also don't realize how this pretty much destroys any argument the US makes around the globe in trying to protest political censorship.

So now you're suggesting that taking down a rogue website that is dedicated to distributing infringing content and has no other significant legitimate purpose is synonymous with the censorship of political speech?

Re: Re: Re: Re:

> What law do you think that law enforcement
> can use to stop a foreign website?

If the foreign website isn't breaking any laws in the country from which it originates, then law enforcement *shouldn't* be allowed to do anythng to stop it at all.

When it targets US consumers, it's in play. Just ask the online gambling site owners. How about kiddie porn, is that OK too as long as it doesn't violate the laws of the ass-backwards third world shithole country the website is registered in?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Targets? WTF does that mean? You realize that the internet supersedes geopolitical borders, don't you? And any attempt to constrict it to such borders will always be sidestepped.

And by the way, Kurdistan called and they want to prosecute you for calling them ass-backwards on the internet. I am sure you will submit to their laws, because that is what you are preaching here, right?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Targets? WTF does that mean? You realize that the internet supersedes geopolitical borders, don't you? And any attempt to constrict it to such borders will always be sidestepped.

Do a bit of research on why online offshore gambling sites are illegal in the US. Or ask your helper.

And by the way, Kurdistan called and they want to prosecute you for calling them ass-backwards on the internet. I am sure you will submit to their laws, because that is what you are preaching here, right?

Idiot
Imbecile
Moron

I don't know exactly which one you are, but I believe that moron is dumbest. of the bunch so I'll settle on that. As you know Kurdistan was never uttered by me. Second, soverign nations do, indeed, engage in site blocking already. You don't even bother setting up strawmen, you just grasp at straws. Haven't you been humiliated enough for one day?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Do a bit of research on why online offshore gambling sites are illegal in the US.

Well, I would venture a guess that the only reason they are illegal in the US is because they can't be taxed.

Or ask your helper.

I haven't a clue to what that means.

Second, soverign nations do, indeed, engage in site blocking already.

Site blocking and domain name/asset seizures are two very different things. The first is simply restricting access to a site, leaving the site untouched. The second involves the actual taking of property, thereby submitting them to US law (kind of like my Kurdistan analogy).

Idiot
Imbecile
Moron

I don't know exactly which one you are, but I believe that moron is dumbest. of the bunch so I'll settle on that.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

> When it targets US consumers, it's in play

Says who?

Certainly not the law. As has been repeatedly explained to you, US laws don't bind the whole world. Even if the US *did* pass a law that declared that websites which target US consumers are 'in play', no *actual* binding legal obligation is imposed on the entire planet merely because the US Congress says so.

> How about kiddie porn, is that OK too as long
> as it doesn't violate the laws of the ass-backwards
> third world shithole country the website is
> registered in?

I have no idea what you mean by 'okay', but the law doesn't concern itself with what is 'okay' and what isn't. If a foreign country did have a law which legalized child porn, then it would indeed be legal in that country. All the US could do, short of declaring war on that country and invading it, would be to block internet access to the country from the US, and even that would be quickly circumvented by those with the desire to do it.

There are indeed several countries whose age-of-consent laws are significantly lower than that of the US, and content that would be considered illegal if produced in the US is perfectly legal in those jurisdictions. Funny how ICE isn't running around seizing *their* domains and Congress isn't considering the passage of an equivalent PROTECT IP Act for child porn. It's almost as if the government thinks copyright infringement is a more serious offense than child rape. Or it could just be that they're more concerned about copyright because the 'victims' of copyright infringement can (and do) line their pockets, while the victims of child rape do not.

Bottom line, you just need to get it through your thick skull that just because Congress says something is illegal, the entire world is not obligated to obey them.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

> When it targets US consumers, it's in play

Says who?

Certainly not the law. As has been repeatedly explained to you, US laws don't bind the whole world. Even if the US *did* pass a law that declared that websites which target US consumers are 'in play', no *actual* binding legal obligation is imposed on the entire planet merely because the US Congress says so.

> How about kiddie porn, is that OK too as long
> as it doesn't violate the laws of the ass-backwards
> third world shithole country the website is
> registered in?

I have no idea what you mean by 'okay', but the law doesn't concern itself with what is 'okay' and what isn't. If a foreign country did have a law which legalized child porn, then it would indeed be legal in that country. All the US could do, short of declaring war on that country and invading it, would be to block internet access to the country from the US, and even that would be quickly circumvented by those with the desire to do it.

There are indeed several countries whose age-of-consent laws are significantly lower than that of the US, and content that would be considered illegal if produced in the US is perfectly legal in those jurisdictions. Funny how ICE isn't running around seizing *their* domains and Congress isn't considering the passage of an equivalent PROTECT IP Act for child porn. It's almost as if the government thinks copyright infringement is a more serious offense than child rape. Or it could just be that they're more concerned about copyright because the 'victims' of copyright infringement can (and do) line their pockets, while the victims of child rape do not.

Bottom line, you just need to get it through your thick skull that just because Congress says something is illegal, the entire world is not obligated to obey them.

You are wrong. Masnick, you want to break the news to him? I don't think he'll believe me.

The reasoning is simple and straightforward. Once you have established that someone who is in a position to censor other people’s communication has a responsibility to do so, the floodgates open and those middlemen can be politically charged with filtering anything that somebody objects to being distributed.

...

But more emotionally, we turn to a German group named Mogis. It is a support group for adult people who were abused as children, and is the only one of its kind. They are very outspoken and adamant on the issue of censoring child pornography.

Censorship hides the problem and causes more children to be abused, they say. Don’t close your eyes, but see reality and act on it. As hard as it is to force oneself to be confronted emotionally with this statement, it is rationally understandable that a problem can’t be addressed by hiding it. One of their slogans is “Crimes should be punished and not hidden”.

This puts the copyright industry’s efforts in perspective. In this context they don’t care in the slightest about children, only about their control over distribution channels.

Re: Re:

> So now you're suggesting that taking down a
> rogue website that is dedicated to distributing
> infringing content and has no other significant
. legitimate purpose

You mean like eBay and YouTube? Because those are on the list, according to the entertainment industry, and they're the ones who get to decide under PROTECT IP.

For the one hundredth time, the Protect IP Act is limited to foreign websites, current US law is sufficient to deal with domestic websites that infringe. Ebay and Youtube are still up, And no, it's also a federal judge under Protect IP.

Re: Re: Re:

If current law is any indication, PIPA is still beyond flawed, not working and still fails to do anything since all it's doing is making people use less secure methods of DNS, as well as set up more secure and anonymous forms of payment.

I still wonder how you fail to see that as you advocate the bill. Have you not realized the law of unintended consequences? Or does the sun always shine with flowers and roses in the reality that PIPA will actually stop anything?

Re: Re: Re: Re:

If current law is any indication, PIPA is still beyond flawed, not working and still fails to do anything since all it's doing is making people use less secure methods of DNS, as well as set up more secure and anonymous forms of payment.

Jay, if you really think that all of the casual, opportunistic infringers are going to migrate en masse to alternate DNS systems, you're crazy. Sure, the hardcore thieves will migrate and many will get scammed and/or have their identities compromised during the course of their adventures. Just desserts as far as I'm concerned.

I still wonder how you fail to see that as you advocate the bill. Have you not realized the law of unintended consequences? Or does the sun always shine with flowers and roses in the reality that PIPA will actually stop anything?

I don't see the parade of horribles that you predict. Free speech? Bullshit, some movie blog attached to an infringing site disappears. So what? Re-start it without the infringing content. Due process? Again, the Protect IP Act affords foreign websites accused of infringing the same procedural rights as any other civil litigant. Break the internet? Nope. At least not for law-abiding citizens. Some of those that travel the back alleys of the Internet looking for illegal content may get mugged, but that's their problem and is easily avoided. You and I both know that cutting off the money from credit card processors, ad networks and disappearing domain names will have a significant impact on these rogue sites. Otherwise you and the rest of the freeloaders, apologists and sundry cheerleaders wouldn't have your knickers in such a twist. If the Protect IP Act was really thought to be feckless, you'd say nothing- content to let the whole thing fall on its face. But you understand the implications and are squealing like a stuck pig.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Jay, if you really think that all of the casual, opportunistic infringers are going to migrate en masse to alternate DNS systems, you're crazy."

Just like the people en masse migrated to Bittorrent when Fox changed their policy, making their show watching illegal? Are you really going to pursue this line of reasoning?

"Free speech? Bullshit, some movie blog attached to an infringing site disappears"

Yep, some people would be pissed if their commentary site were taken down without any warning.

" Again, the Protect IP Act affords foreign websites accused of infringing the same procedural rights as any other civil litigant."

Bullshit on your part because you've never explained this. You always fudge up in explaining how a private party gets a right to action against a website, or the methods that need to be taken in getting in contact with a foreign owner BEFORE a site is taken down. But now that alternatives are popping up, it's going to answer the next part of your post:

" Break the internet?"

Yes, because the DNS servers will be less secure and more prone to hacking. Obviously, since you don't understand it, you want it broken.

" You and I both know that cutting off the money from credit card processors, ad networks and disappearing domain names will have a significant impact on these rogue sites."

Uhm... Yeah... I'm pretty sure that all this does is change how people make payment processes in various ways. Piracy, the thing that this is supposed to stop, won't change and people will be able to still infringe. It's like you're saying the drug policy has reduced demand for drugs. It hasn't. All these complex rules do is make the US government look worse and worse by trying to censor people while criticizing the rest of the world.

"Otherwise you and the rest of the freeloaders, apologists and sundry cheerleaders wouldn't have your knickers in such a twist."

Nope. Disingenuous argument based on an assumption.

"If the Protect IP Act was really thought to be feckless, you'd say nothing- content to let the whole thing fall on its face."

Even before it's a law, you have the engineers of the internet (you know, the people that actually know what's going on?) saying it's bad. You have various entrepreneurs who have learned to use the internet saying it's bad. You have more people saying it's bad while only one or two industries that benefit from having their own private police force say it's good.

It seems when you're paid to ignore bad laws that implicate most of the world as criminals, you'll only look to pass the law and ignore any criticism.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Jay, if you really think that all of the casual, opportunistic infringers are going to migrate en masse to alternate DNS systems, you're crazy."

Just like the people en masse migrated to Bittorrent when Fox changed their policy, making their show watching illegal? Are you really going to pursue this line of reasoning?

You're not suggesting that the ease of downloading with Bittorrent is the same as using an alternate DNS system are you? And don't you think some people will be justifiably concerned about security that they will not adopt an alternate DNS? I do.

"Free speech? Bullshit, some movie blog attached to an infringing site disappears"

Yep, some people would be pissed if their commentary site were taken down without any warning.

You can't immunize yourself from criminal culpability by having a legitimate commentary site. Ask Phara how that worked out for her.

" Again, the Protect IP Act affords foreign websites accused of infringing the same procedural rights as any other civil litigant."

Bullshit on your part because you've never explained this. You always fudge up in explaining how a private party gets a right to action against a website, or the methods that need to be taken in getting in contact with a foreign owner BEFORE a site is taken down. But now that alternatives are popping up, it's going to answer the next part of your post:

Jay. Read the bill. The US Attorney has to make reasonable attempts to contact the website owner before taking action. Newsflash: They don't want to be found. Why is that so hard to get?

" Break the internet?"

Yes, because the DNS servers will be less secure and more prone to hacking. Obviously, since you don't understand it, you want it broken.

It will be "broken" for those who seek to use alternate DNS for the purpose of accessing infringing content. Tough shit. Something bad happens to you while you're pursuing an unlawful activity that's on you.

" You and I both know that cutting off the money from credit card processors, ad networks and disappearing domain names will have a significant impact on these rogue sites."

Uhm... Yeah... I'm pretty sure that all this does is change how people make payment processes in various ways.

Piracy, the thing that this is supposed to stop, won't change and people will be able to still infringe. It's like you're saying the drug policy has reduced demand for drugs. It hasn't.

The drug business is a cash, hand-to-hand business. Go ahead and send an envelope full of cash to Yuri in Vladivostok for access to the latest movies and let me know how that works out.

All these complex rules do is make the US government look worse and worse by trying to censor people while criticizing the rest of the world.

Censor my ass. Equating infringing content with political speech is laughable, even for you.

"Otherwise you and the rest of the freeloaders, apologists and sundry cheerleaders wouldn't have your knickers in such a twist."

Nope. Disingenuous argument based on an assumption.

I won't argue here. We will see soon enough.

"If the Protect IP Act was really thought to be feckless, you'd say nothing- content to let the whole thing fall on its face."

Even before it's a law, you have the engineers of the internet (you know, the people that actually know what's going on?) saying it's bad. You have various entrepreneurs who have learned to use the internet saying it's bad. You have more people saying it's bad while only one or two industries that benefit from having their own private police force say it's good.

The ones who think Protect IP is good are the ones who are having their shit stolen. The ones who think it is bad are not. Not too surprising.

It seems when you're paid to ignore bad laws that implicate most of the world as criminals, you'll only look to pass the law and ignore any criticism.

I don't think that most of the world takes content without compensating the rightful owner. Not everyone feels so entitled and lacks the integrity that you appear to.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"You're not suggesting that the ease of downloading with Bittorrent is the same as using an alternate DNS system are you? And don't you think some people will be justifiably concerned about security that they will not adopt an alternate DNS? I do."

It's becoming more evident that you underestimate how people adapt to challenges of legislation. The legislation isn't going to prevent piracy, nor make the DNS system more secure. People WILL find alternatives and you seem to believe that people won't learn to use a new DNS system as necessary? Come on...

"You can't immunize yourself from criminal culpability by having a legitimate commentary site. Ask Phara how that worked out for her. "

Funny, bring up a person who had their assets seized before having a trial on whether their domain was illegal in a court of law. Great example. I guess the fact that Monster is salivating for this to pass so they can accuse ebay of being illegal by their standards escapes your notice of what a rogue website will be defined as.

"Jay. Read the bill. The US Attorney has to make reasonable attempts to contact the website owner before taking action. Newsflash: They don't want to be found. Why is that so hard to get?"

Newsflash: The wording is vague, and you damn well know it. Until there's something concrete there (they have to call the house of residence, they have to email and show the emails to the judge, the AG has to contact the domain in question and leave a forum post with his name and date on the site in question) then it's intentionally vague. The way to clear that up, is to make SURE to give all information to the court so it can be verified how he attempted to call. As it stands, it could be something as minor as the AG having one phone call, not leaving a message and that is dismissed as a "reasonable attempt."

That's actually getting easier to do once PIPA forces people to adapt to it.

"It will be "broken" for those who seek to use alternate DNS for the purpose of accessing infringing content. Tough shit. Something bad happens to you while you're pursuing an unlawful activity that's on you."

It'll be broken for everyone. How sad you still ignore that when it's been discussed over and over again. But I guess when one of the authors of the internet speak, you don't choose to listen.

"The drug business is a cash, hand-to-hand business. Go ahead and send an envelope full of cash to Yuri in Vladivostok for access to the latest movies and let me know how that works out. "

Remember how I started this thread by stating the drug policy has failed? You're still not answering the point I raised about how this will fail to restrict demand. Instead you're just moving the goal posts.

"Censor my ass. Equating infringing content with political speech is laughable, even for you"

This just in: The US censors people from making websites while criticizing China for censoring websites. News at 11.

"The ones who think Protect IP is good are the ones who are having their shit stolen. The ones who think it is bad are not. Not too surprising."

So who's "shit is stolen" and how? Do I have to explain the difference of infringement and theft yet again?

"I don't think that most of the world takes content without compensating the rightful owner. Not everyone feels so entitled and lacks the integrity that you appear to."

I pay for my content first of all. I create my own stuff. Some based on other copyrighted material, some of it on my own. There's no sense of entitlement with me. But noticing that those that claim PIPA will solve all problems on the internet, while splitting it up into smaller communities, seem to be the ones incredibly entitled to making money using outdated business models. That's not my problem, nor the problem of those in some far off country where access to entertainment is limited.

As I've said and demonstrated before, if they want to make money make their IP available legally. It's not that hard. Using the government to wield a flamethrower on a nail isn't going to solve anything. It's not that hard, but you seem to want to make it so. The fact that most of the "problems" of piracy can be solved by making legal services escapes you. But hey, when your paycheck is on the line for this to pass, it's not my problem either.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"You're not suggesting that the ease of downloading with Bittorrent is the same as using an alternate DNS system are you? And don't you think some people will be justifiably concerned about security that they will not adopt an alternate DNS? I do."

It's becoming more evident that you underestimate how people adapt to challenges of legislation. The legislation isn't going to prevent piracy, nor make the DNS system more secure. People WILL find alternatives and you seem to believe that people won't learn to use a new DNS system as necessary? Come on...

I have stated on a number of occasions that Protect IP is not a silver bullet. It will have an impact, it will be significant. It won't stop piracy. We clear?

"You can't immunize yourself from criminal culpability by having a legitimate commentary site. Ask Phara how that worked out for her. "

Funny, bring up a person who had their assets seized before having a trial on whether their domain was illegal in a court of law. Great example. I guess the fact that Monster is salivating for this to pass so they can accuse ebay of being illegal by their standards escapes your notice of what a rogue website will be defined as.

The law that is sending Phara to prison has been on the books for years and is applicable to Ebay today. Why then has it not been prosecuted? That's easy, Ebay is no Ninjavideo. Again I remind you that the Protect IP Act does NOT apply to US based sites.

"Jay. Read the bill. The US Attorney has to make reasonable attempts to contact the website owner before taking action. Newsflash: They don't want to be found. Why is that so hard to get?"

Newsflash: The wording is vague, and you damn well know it. Until there's something concrete there (they have to call the house of residence, they have to email and show the emails to the judge, the AG has to contact the domain in question and leave a forum post with his name and date on the site in question) then it's intentionally vague. The way to clear that up, is to make SURE to give all information to the court so it can be verified how he attempted to call. As it stands, it could be something as minor as the AG having one phone call, not leaving a message and that is dismissed as a "reasonable attempt."

Whether you find it vague or not, Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure still apply. Attempts at service have to conform to existing law.

That's actually getting easier to do once PIPA forces people to adapt to it.

Maybe so. Hard to believe any new entity will achieve the same global acceptance and won't also be charged under the laws of many nations for deliberately facilitating criminal enterprise.

"It will be "broken" for those who seek to use alternate DNS for the purpose of accessing infringing content. Tough shit. Something bad happens to you while you're pursuing an unlawful activity that's on you."

It'll be broken for everyone. How sad you still ignore that when it's been discussed over and over again. But I guess when one of the authors of the internet speak, you don't choose to listen.

How will my internet be broken? I have no interest in walking down the dark alley, there's nothing there I want.

"The drug business is a cash, hand-to-hand business. Go ahead and send an envelope full of cash to Yuri in Vladivostok for access to the latest movies and let me know how that works out. "

Remember how I started this thread by stating the drug policy has failed? You're still not answering the point I raised about how this will fail to restrict demand. Instead you're just moving the goal posts.

Jay, I never said this will eradicate piracy. It will take a large number of casual, opportunistic infringers out of the mix. It will also make it easier for law enforcement to focus on the hardcore infringers. Watch out!

"Censor my ass. Equating infringing content with political speech is laughable, even for you"

This just in: The US censors people from making websites while criticizing China for censoring websites. News at 11.

Equating infringing content with political speech is laughable, even for you

"The ones who think Protect IP is good are the ones who are having their shit stolen. The ones who think it is bad are not. Not too surprising."

So who's "shit is stolen" and how? Do I have to explain the difference of infringement and theft yet again?

I know you're more comfortable with the term "infringing". Tough shit. You take something of value without compensating the rightful owner, it's stealing. Live with it.

"I don't think that most of the world takes content without compensating the rightful owner. Not everyone feels so entitled and lacks the integrity that you appear to."

I pay for my content first of all. I create my own stuff. Some based on other copyrighted material, some of it on my own. There's no sense of entitlement with me.

I'd be surprised, but OK I have no proof to the contrary, but you sure act like a bitch about it given your statement that you don't engage in piracy personally.

But noticing that those that claim PIPA will solve all problems on the internet, while splitting it up into smaller communities, seem to be the ones incredibly entitled to making money using outdated business models.

That's not me. I have never said anything more than that the Protect IP Act will have a significant impact on casual infringing.

That's not my problem, nor the problem of those in some far off country where access to entertainment is limited.

Who cares about access to entertainment in Buttfuckistan? Why are they somehow entitled to get US movies and music? You want a product? Either pay for it or do without.

As I've said and demonstrated before, if they want to make money make their IP available legally. It's not that hard. Using the government to wield a flamethrower on a nail isn't going to solve anything. It's not that hard, but you seem to want to make it so. The fact that most of the "problems" of piracy can be solved by making legal services escapes you. But hey, when your paycheck is on the line for this to pass, it's not my problem either.

Again, new distribution models are coming. Not fast enough but are coming. You still fail to acknowledge that piracy itself creates barriers to entry. Netflix and Hulu can compete because they're on a massive scale with enormous capitalization. But a small market entrant will get killed by pirate sites if he's paying license fees and competing against the likes of TVShack who is not. Clearly you can see that?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I have stated on a number of occasions that Protect IP is not a silver bullet. It will have an impact, it will be significant. It won't stop piracy. We clear?

Nope, you just forgot to mention how this miracle will happen, when everybody that knows anything about technology tells you it won't.
Experts are saying it won't have any impact why are you not listening to the people who knows more than you?
Are you a tech expert?

Pardon me, but even I do know how to circumvent those measures, any kid knows how to enter IP numbers on the configuration of DNS servers, proxies can be used to bypass ISP's trying to block alternative root domains services, they all know how to do it.
More what happens if those young people start using virtual currencies since they won't be able to use normal currencies?

"You can't immunize yourself from criminal culpability by having a legitimate commentary site. Ask Phara how that worked out for her."

Why because she is one the low hanging fruit?
People don't need to ask, they will just move on to more secure channels, what happens when you are not able to track the "criminal" behavior of sharing?

The law that is sending Phara to prison has been on the books for years and is applicable to Ebay today. Why then has it not been prosecuted? That's easy, Ebay is no Ninjavideo. Again I remind you that the Protect IP Act does NOT apply to US based sites.

I see that as a double standard a Damoecles Sword hanging over the heads of everybody else, what happened to due dilligence, all the safeguards that guarded people against abuse are being dismantled.

Whether you find it vague or not, Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure still apply. Attempts at service have to conform to existing law.

So that is it? because it is the law nobody can point out the flaws and it needs to be followed blindy?
That is why I don't even try to respect copyrights, I do break copyright laws everyday I'm sure.

Maybe so. Hard to believe any new entity will achieve the same global acceptance and won't also be charged under the laws of many nations for deliberately facilitating criminal enterprise.

What if it is not an entity?
Bitcoin is a virtual currency, that is governed by no one, it gives everyone a chance to make money and create interested parties of everyone involved. Virtual currencies can prove to be difficult to track down and prosecute, specially if they start using proxies(LLC's, Fiscal Paradises, Creative Accounting, Overseas accounts etc).

How will my internet be broken? I have no interest in walking down the dark alley, there's nothing there I want.

The music industry didn't want to come to the internet and somehow they ended up here why?
Because people came, you depend on others and if a lot of people start using something else you will be forced to go to that dark alley.
Want to do business in Europe? What happens if people start using a root domain that only serves Europe? You need to configure your computer to reach that, you don't want to do it? fine others will do it, now until people find a new trusty source for those domains it will be bad with a lot of bad people pointing others to trap root domain servers that could be malicious, but you don't care about that right, it could actually increase criminality at all levels but that is not important apparently right?

Jay, I never said this will eradicate piracy. It will take a large number of casual, opportunistic infringers out of the mix. It will also make it easier for law enforcement to focus on the hardcore infringers. Watch out!

You just don't ever mention how this will happen or why it would happen, when all experts say it won't, now I do think experts on their fields might have some more credibility than you on this mater.

Equating infringing content with political speech is laughable, even for you

Really, how do you think America was founded?
That is right, illegal speech, seditious speech that was punished by death, was it not?
Calling something illegal is not enough to make it just.

I know you're more comfortable with the term "infringing". Tough shit. You take something of value without compensating the rightful owner, it's stealing. Live with it.

Exactly what is the valueable taken?
Is a restaurant owner capable of protecting his intellectual property from other restaurants? Can other restaurants not copy his dishes and sell those if they want to?
The real value being stolen is societies freedoms in the name of greed.

I'd be surprised, but OK I have no proof to the contrary, but you sure act like a bitch about it given your statement that you don't engage in piracy personally.

Not more bitchy than you.

That's not me. I have never said anything more than that the Protect IP Act will have a significant impact on casual infringing.

Which reminds me, how do you know it will do what you said it would?

Who cares about access to entertainment in Buttfuckistan? Why are they somehow entitled to get US movies and music? You want a product? Either pay for it or do without.

Well that is just why people don't give a fuck about paying you LoL
You don't give a fuck about them why should they care about you?

Again, new distribution models are coming. Not fast enough but are coming. You still fail to acknowledge that piracy itself creates barriers to entry. Netflix and Hulu can compete because they're on a massive scale with enormous capitalization. But a small market entrant will get killed by pirate sites if he's paying license fees and competing against the likes of TVShack who is not. Clearly you can see that?

Really, what about Revision3, The Guild, and the numerous people making six figures on Youtube?
Are piracy bad for them?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"I have stated on a number of occasions that Protect IP is not a silver bullet. It will have an impact, it will be significant. It won't stop piracy."

And what I'm saying is the impact you expect won't occur. All of these warning signs BEFORE you advocate PIPA is ignoring what is actually happening.

"The law that is sending Phara to prison has been on the books for years and is applicable to Ebay today. Why then has it not been prosecuted? That's easy, Ebay is no Ninjavideo. Again I remind you that the Protect IP Act does NOT apply to US based sites."

Bullshit. Where was her hearing before the seizure? Where was a DMCA takedown on the five movies so NV had a chance to contest it? Where was *something* that said she was allowed to have her day in court and speak her mind about the seizure before she was turned into a criminal with a plea deal?

"Whether you find it vague or not, Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure still apply. Attempts at service have to conform to existing law."

The vagueness of that rule makes the law laughable. Give a bully with a badge power to do whatever they want. That's really helping the economy.

"How will my internet be broken?"

Read the links in my other post. Paul Vixie discusses it in detail.

"You take something of value without compensating the rightful owner, it's stealing. Live with it."

And here I thought you weren't going to try to be disingenuous. Since the Supreme Court has already said infringement is not stealing, you're wrong here. Tough shit.

"Equating infringing content with political speech is laughable, even for you"

Equating due process rights to criminal behavior is laughable, even for you.

" It will take a large number of casual, opportunistic infringers out of the mix. It will also make it easier for law enforcement to focus on the hardcore infringers."

And I keep pointing you to how effective it is with Hadopi and the UK Digital Act. It's not. You understand this but you keep making the same tired argument that says "don't worry, the Ministry of Truth will make this all better". You aren't. The effects are already known through the work of Joe Karaganis, Mike, Paul Vixie, and others that continue to watch this trainwreck of a bill destroy the internet.

" I have never said anything more than that the Protect IP Act will have a significant impact on casual infringing."

And I'm saying, based on the evidence given of this process, it's not the one you expect.

"Who cares about access to entertainment in Buttfuckistan? Why are they somehow entitled to get US movies and music? You want a product? Either pay for it or do without"

Here we are talking about potential sales and there you go correlating a download or streamed product to one lost sale.

"You still fail to acknowledge that piracy itself creates barriers to entry."

Because it doesn't. Copyright and its enforcement does that. There's more evidence that weaker copyright laws allow for more profit to the economy, and progresses the arts and sciences, far more than copyright enforcement. The actual barriers are copyright itself. Why is there not five competing streaming services to Netflix and Hulu? Copyright and high licensing from the MPAA. Why is it that the RIAA is going for hip hop blogs that undermine it's radio payola? Copyright and a need to control. Piracy hasn't caused any of these problems. It's been the way to route around arbitrary limits. Maybe if more people figured out the causes of piracy and answered those questions, you would see it decrease. Which has been shown again, and again and again.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

And what I'm saying is the impact you expect won't occur. All of these warning signs BEFORE you advocate PIPA is ignoring what is actually happening.

Jay you don't have a crystal ball, neither do I. The Protect IP Act is going to be passed and life for most everyone will be unchanged. Maybe you should try the Serenity Prayer.

"Whether you find it vague or not, Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure still apply. Attempts at service have to conform to existing law."

The vagueness of that rule makes the law laughable. Give a bully with a badge power to do whatever they want. That's really helping the economy.

That rule governs all of civil jurisprudence in the United States and seems to be well-tested for fairness. Sorry you think that your pirate friends should enjoy a different standard than everybody else.

" It will take a large number of casual, opportunistic infringers out of the mix. It will also make it easier for law enforcement to focus on the hardcore infringers."

And I keep pointing you to how effective it is with Hadopi and the UK Digital Act. It's not. You understand this but you keep making the same tired argument that says "don't worry, the Ministry of Truth will make this all better". You aren't. The effects are already known through the work of Joe Karaganis, Mike, Paul Vixie, and others that continue to watch this trainwreck of a bill destroy the internet.

As I told you, international anti-piracy efforts aren't my strong suit. But I don't believe that Hadopi or the Digital Economy Act have ad network and payment processor restrictions. I'm not sure about ISP and search engine de-listing but think that Hadopi is simply graduated response. So since you can't find a real world example you site "the work of Joe Karaganis, Mike, Paul Vixie, and others..."? Mike Masnick? You have got to be kidding. That you cite the "work" of Masnick is a total joke. He's a blogger with an ax to grind. The others are egg-sucking apologists as well.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"The Protect IP Act is going to be passed and life for most everyone will be unchanged."

With so much of an uproar about this, you're still adamant it won't change a thing? As if the DMCA didn't change life for most people? Come on, pull my other leg while you insist that copyright law isn't being used to control regular people it isn't supposed to control.

"That rule governs all of civil jurisprudence in the United States and seems to be well-tested for fairness."

*snicker* And the FBI doesn't try to bully Wikipedia or Mozilla, nor does it make mistakes. Funny, I heard the same insistence about the ACTA. It was conforming to existing law even though it doesn't. And the FBI is filled with more liars and cheaters than the ones in prison. Fairness isn't the issue here, it's the ones holding the badge that can't be trusted. And the fact that they are twisting all the copyright laws to convict people for criminal copyright infringement doesn't bode well for people if the AG is getting involved.

" The others are egg-sucking apologists as well."

Paul Vixie? The guy that helped to create the internet from DARPA? You don't know him?

Nor Joe Karaganis, who lead a team of researchers into piracy, doing your job for you in figuring out how piracy worked in the US, Brazil, India, Canada, South Africa, and quite a few other countries?

Who also found out there were no links to terrorism and piracy nor did it cause a 1:1 loss from a download?

That's an apologist to you? Someone you can't begin to comprehend their work because you get paid to pass laws that have been proven fruitless?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"But a small market entrant will get killed by pirate sites if he's paying license fees and competing against the likes of TVShack who is not."

Prove it. Prove that TVShack affected anyone from making money on movies, music, or TV shows that they watched.

Better yet, name any person that has been affected negatively by piracy. Show examples. For every example that you show, I'll show double that have had piracy, in some regard, affect them in the positive. It's so damn annoying when you sit there and say a pirate site, a free site that is promoting movies, documentaries, or whatever else is somehow affecting a commercial site. At the very least, you should be able to prove that.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

As you know well this is the age-old argument that has no definitive answer. Some in the industry say that every pirated movie or song represents a lost sale. Apologists like yourself claim that there is no impact. The truth (I believe) is that the number is between 1 and 99%. How do you quantify that with any reasonable degree of accuracy? I know I can't demonstrate it with sufficient confidence and I doubt that you can either. But feel free.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

This entire time I've been showing how piracy is basically unmet demand. Once you sit down and think about the reasons people pirate then stop giving people reasons and try to make money, the actual work is academic. No one has apologized for piracy. People have just learned to adapt and find new ways in entertainment to adapt to digital technology.

Gaming - Notice that WoW, the most prolific MMO for some time, has actually gone Free to Play like most other MMOs. You've had more people at the very least try out WoW nowadays than pay for a subscription (it's free to level 20).

Music - Soundcloud, Youtube, Grooveshark, Turntable. Free music can be had in a number of places. Without downloading. Just streaming and having internet access.

Movies - What's entirely amazing about the entire enforcement angle is how shortsighted it really is in a nutshell. Does Universal have a website? Can they stream? Have they streamed? Quite frankly if the MPAA and its affiliates stopped trying to police the rest of the world and focused on what they were doing, you would have a legal option for streaming. The MPAA and affiliates. They could license out movies to Hulu and Netflix at reasonable rates. Theaters would have better options than the high rents they have to pay now for movies. And there would be far more options in the movie theaters than popcorn and overpriced soda.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Actually he can, he just need to get the top hundred of any chart and compare that to values before the internet and see if there was any impact on revenues.

Movies I know are earning more today than they earned in the 80's and 90's, music stars are earning more today than they did before, the first crop of multimillionaire internet born book authors is coming to age, so really where is the harm?

How is that the industry is growing and claiming harm?

More importantly how is that if that is so fundamental, why is that other sectors of society thrive without any protections?

Why do restaurants can't protect their dishes from being copied by others?
Why fashion is doing fabulously?

There is no harm, because there is no real intellectual property, copyright is a fantasy, a scheme to legitimize undue control over a market.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

By the way that value range you proposed is wrong, the right one should be 0%~99%, one implies that there is harm without possibility of no harm being done.

Which is funny because if it was so harmful why TV succeeded? why payola keeps happening? you know labels paying radio to play their songs instead of being paid for playing them.

Why a lot of studies, say that it improves sales of secondary and tertiary products and also can opens doors for services.

You say that there is harm but you can't prove it, when people can show you in no uncertain terms that the artists actually make more money today then they did in any other decade and you say that with a straight face no less.

Re: Re: Re:

For the one hundredth time, the Protect IP Act is limited to foreign websites, current US law is sufficient to deal with domestic websites that infringe. Ebay and Youtube are still up, And no, it's also a federal judge under Protect IP.

No, no it is not. Read the damn thing, and stop your goddamn fear-mongering, you pathetic excuse for an individual. I've spend the last two hours reading all your garbage-spewing, FUD based commentary, and it's sickening. Go back to your masters and hide under the rock they have set aside just for you.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"For the one hundredth time, the Protect IP Act is limited to foreign websites, current US law is sufficient to deal with domestic websites that infringe. Ebay and Youtube are still up, And no, it's also a federal judge under Protect IP."

No, no it is not. Read the damn thing, and stop your goddamn fear-mongering, you pathetic excuse for an individual. I've spend the last two hours reading all your garbage-spewing, FUD based commentary, and it's sickening. Go back to your masters and hide under the rock they have set aside just for you.

Perhaps you should have spent the two hours reading the Act. Does the term "nondomestic" mean anything to you?

"(1) IN PERSONAM.—The Attorney General may
commence an in personam action against— (A) a registrant of a nondomestic domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to in-
fringing activities; or (B) an owner or operator of an Internet
site dedicated to infringing activities accessed through a nondomesticdomain name."

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Which means they will go after any American that has ever had the audacity to find a server in another country and could be labeled "infringing" on something, so an American puts a server in China to protest the American government he can have his domain name taken away.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Which means they will go after any American that has ever had the audacity to find a server in another country and could be labeled "infringing" on something, so an American puts a server in China to protest the American government he can have his domain name taken away.

Depict it however you want. To me it means that the American you speak of can't brazenly break the copyright laws of his own country simply by leasing a server in China. Nor can he sell poison masquerading as medicine just because he manufactured and shipped it from China. Nor can he rip off consumer with counterfeit hardgoods just because it all happens in China.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

What happens when other countries enact laws criminalizing American business people in their countries for things they did in US soil that goes against their laws?

Will they end up like Dick Cheney afraid to go overseas?

Now is the government really wanting to protect artists or just wants more power to censor others?

Could they just claim copyright and try and stop Wikileaks from being accessed in the US?

What about the power of an injunction without having to notify anyone?

Is this law going to stay the same or be amended in the future to include more things? Is this just the foot in the door to open it?

Those are serious questions that nobody wants to answer, you just keep deflecting and trying to change the subject.

This is a tool for censorship plain and simple it doesn't address piracy as we all know it has already been made irrelevant, people can bypass PROTECT IP with little to no effort so why exactly do people want a law that doesn't work for what it is being advertised again?

Additionally, the way the law works is that it puts a direct burden on US companies to figure out ways to block sites declared rogue (you know, like the Internet Archive and 50 Cent's personal website), or face liability. This will increase both compliance and legal costs.

Where will be the list of rogue websites? How people will be able to complain about inacuracies? What happens if there is abuse?

This law has nothing of that in it, and you want people to take your word for it that it will function as advertised and people will not try to use it in other ways it was not intended?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Quote:

The Supreme Court has held that it's unconstitutional to suppress speech without an "adversary proceeding." That is, a speaker must, at a minimum, be given the opportunity to tell his side of the story to a judge before his speech can be suppressed.

Yet under PIPA, a judge decides whether to block a domain after hearing only from the government. Overseas domain owners (and the speakers who might make use of their websites) aren't offered the opportunity to either participate in the legal process or appeal the decision after the fact. (Affected domain owners may file a separate lawsuit after the fact.) This, the professors say, "falls far short of what the Constitution requires before speech can be eliminated from public circulation."

"Courts could issue such an order even if the owner of that domain name was never given notice that a case against it had been filed at all," they say. It also requires credit card providers, advertisers, andsearch engines to refuse to deal with the owners of such sites.

"Remarkably, the bill applies to domain names outside the United States, even if they are registered not in the .com but, say, the .uk or .fr domains," it reads.

"It even applies to sites that have no connection with the United States at all, so long as they allegedly 'harm holders' of US intellectual property rights."
.
.
.
"Even China doesn't demand that search engines outside China refuse to index or link to other Web sites outside China," it points out.

Impressively Japanese and Chinese movies are starting to dominate in Asia, you know what that means right?

Less cash for Hollywood.

But that is not a local thing, Russia is also turning out some impressive good movies that are for the most part equal in visual quality to Hollywood, even Africa is starting to create their own entertainment market, the only place on earth that is not happening is in the Americas where Hollywood still dominates for the most part.

Now do you care to explain why the markets that saw the most growth are the ones where piracy is rampant?

So we end up with two DNS systems

And the obvious next step is to make it illegal to use these alternate DNS systems because the only reason that they could possibly exist is to steal content. That is the logic that they will use, and they will be hurt to the quick that anyone will question their logic.

However there is an alternative. I've started writting a series of articles about publishing, and while doing it I've found out that most writers really don't know a hell of a lot about their own business. Most don't know a damned thing about the money side of their business.

The answer is to educate them on the money side, so that they have the knowledge to cut the cord from the publishers, whether they are book publishers, music publishers, or video publishers, so they can go direct to their customers.

I'd rather not try to explain all of the details in an answer here, so instead I'm going to post links to my articles, and suggest you read all three. I also suggest that you look at the spreadsheet in the third article, which shows the difference in earnings if the writer goes directly to the reader as compared to going through a publisher. Several writers who have seen it, and read the article have called the numbers scary.

- Disrupt normal operations of the internet for a while until people agree in some other system to root around the "damaged areas".
- Create a decentralized root domain system.
- Increase risk for people, by loosing control and supervision of that system.
- Create a common virtual currency that would be used to trade goods and services that could reduce the relevance of the dollar on international markets. Which means less economic leverage to get things done.

Some thoughts

One of the ACs keeps carping on how PROTECT IP will somehow prevent payment processors, advertising networks, etc from working with these sites. This is patently untrue. What will happen instead, is that US-based payment processors, advertising networks, etc will lose business to ones that are not US-based, and in fact, more will simply crop up to serve this purpose.

They also carped on the fact that part of the bill addresses non-domestic domains. What is the definition of a non-domestic domain? Can a domain that has content served from a CDN in Canada be considered non-domestic? What about one that has the main domain registered in say, Belgium, but has email or other services provided out of the US and the owners and all other parts of the site/operation are in the US? Is that a non-domestic domain then?

How is this going to handle what may be infringing content posted to the European branch of Facebook for instance?

There are many other questions to ask surrounding this bill, and the least of it involves "piracy" of any sort. Much of it involving censorship, prior restraint, restrictions on trade, due process, etc.

I also wonder how countries like India will react when they find out their national sovereignty is impacted by a US law they had no say in (this law will impact legitimate business enterprises in other nations, of which those nations have the say over, not the US media content industry). What will the US do if these nations in turn decide they can seize US domains as they see fit? What would the US do, for instance, if an Indian pharmaceutical or chemical company successfully took the domain of Pfizer or DOW Chemical? What would they do if a Russian payment processing company successfully took the domain of Paypal?

What happens if the root DNS servers hosted outside of the US unilaterally blackhole the entire IP address space of the US government because a foreign government wins a court judgement to do so in retaliation for their corporations being impacted by this bill?

Something tells me this PROTECT IP act opens up a can of worms they are not expecting or are prepared to deal with, including the possibility of economic retaliations.